User Profile: bonesiii

bonesiii

Member Since: October 14, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • December 17, 2014 at 10:05pm

    “why
    after dictating all “his” thoughts to folks during the Bronze age
    god stopped talking to us?”

    First a few nitpicks — the bronze “age” is a bit of a myth, largely based on evolutionary belief. And God didn’t usually dictate the Bible but inspired it.

    Anyways, the Bible is long enough, man. No need to make it as long as Obamacare… ;)

  • December 17, 2014 at 9:06pm

    “Arcana, my point is,…I never even heard a “no”. I heard nothing.”

    And nobody said you would. You don’t need to hear “no” audibly to find out the answer is no. When what you asked for doesn’t happen, answer’s no.

    Big, see one of my posts farther up on this page why that doesn’t work as an argument against God (but an argument for him).

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:33pm

    “What really gets me is the account in Revelation where “the martyred saints cry out for vengeance upon those who killed them”. You would think that “being in Heaven with Jesus” would be FAR more important to them”

    Nowhere does the account say otherwise. This is a strawman (this happens a lot on this subject), and also a false dichotomy; being with our Lord is not mutually exclusive with seeking justice; in fact it implies it, since God is holy. :)

    “they would forget anything that could have ever happened to them while alive”

    That makes no sense, first because… no offense, but it seems hopelessly naive to think that you could go through martyrdom and just shrug it off! And second, while God could wipe all our memories (and some invoke a few verses to support it), it doesn’t make sense in light of the eternal rewards for good works, especially with keeping the faith in the face of ultimate persecution being at the top of the list! Even if they don’t remember the specifics, they would at least know they were martyred and this logically requires that justice needs to come to somebody who killed them.

    “It makes me see the text as “the result of an angry person in that time period having wishful thinking about a god who strikes out in vengeance towards those harming them”. It is inconsistent with the concept of Heaven.”

    Problem is this concept is in your head, not the Bible (strawman).

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:27pm

    “most don’t praise god, with joy [as they actually should], for a death”

    Another strawman; death is treated as the enemy, an intrusion caused by sin. God is the victor OVER death, ultimately. It does not make sense biblically to praise God FOR death. (Unless you mean certain judgment deaths on a violent person etc.)

    “I never understand if there is paradise to come, why even take ONE chemo treatment to fight off cancer?”

    You know, Big, at some point you have to realize that you already know enough to know God is real — demanding that you understand all the other issues is really not reasonable, though I can see why people do it, and it was the mistake I made too. :) There are many other things in life you don’t understand all the details for but you do accept because you know enough there too to know they’re real.

    Anyways, in this case the answer is pretty simple — killing ourselves is a sin too, because we may still have good to do in this life, especially for reaching the lost — especially family. Another thing is just that the drive to survive is built in, in people, and is the same reason God grants heaven, after all. Many don’t really work as hard as they should at reaching the lost, but this drive is still powerful enough that they won’t give up. Plus, of course, they love people who are left, etc. There actually are many reasons and they vary by individual.

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:17pm

    “don’t understand WHY god gets the credit for the wins and not the losses.”

    This never really confused me, but I’ve learned a lot about it, and the thing is, if you don’t seek, and you don’t think constructively about it (if you just stop at “I don’t understand it so I’ll assume it doesn’t make sense”), you can miss that it really does make sense. There’s a lot of different ways to look at it, most of them not mutually exclusive.

    One that has really intrigued me is that the causality proof (see many of my past posts if you’re unfamiliar) seems to require, in addition to the existence of God, that every possibility exists too. All bad things exist somewhere, in some sense. God is then defined as the single consciousness that is entirely self-consistent. This also means that bad things must exist that aren’t his fault too. Those people who choose loyalty to him may pass through the bad in this world, which has (due to sin) dipped into the bad of existence, but will ultimately be brought in to perfection with God. :)

    The simpler normal answer, which is also sound (and may be another way of looking at the above) is that God needed to grant freewill in order for love to be genuine, and freewill can be (and has been) abused. See Genesis 3.

    Note: in a sense, God IS given “credit” for some “bad” things (that have better overall results), so it’s actually a bit of a strawman. But the cause of the bad is ultimately sin, not God.

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:00pm

    “He expresses praise to a god….who says nothing back.”

    Strawman, Keres — the Bible doesn’t tell you to expect God to audibly speak back to you like a gumball machine (not usually and not in this life at least; he did for a few in the Bible, but it was always treated as extraordinary or for people in extraordinary roles like Mosheh). It teaches that he follows a similar system as the ancient model of patrons, who are distant to their followers; they’re expected to be loyal to the patron, and work for them, and in return ultimately the patron works for their good too.

    In this case, that is primarily eternal life (and guidance by the Spirit in this life) for those who do accept that loyalty to Yeshua. It is not light shows or sound shows on demand. You’re confusing God with Netflix. :P

    As for your story of a congregation apparently falling over themselves to get a “feeling”… Sorry, but that is way unbiblical. O_o We can already know God exists through the things that were made (you and I have been over this before, you know); there’s no need for light shows or the like, and those would likely cause worse problems like lending credence to lying cult leaders who claim to have received a special vision beyond the Bible (one message for all), and would presumably be fakeable anyways.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 17, 2014 at 7:52pm

    “don’t force your religious beliefs upon others, as the political evangelical movement is wont to do in this country”

    No they aren’t… We’re just not too big on anti-Christian beliefs being forced on us…

  • December 17, 2014 at 7:48pm

    To your other points:

    -I won’t comment on whether the doctors’ actions led to it except to say that’s certainly possible too, but that if they believed it would not work, the case is still relevant for analysis.

    -Figures of past cases would be great but is obviously beyond the scope of the news article here.

    -Christians who die despite prayer may be explained in any number of ways. Your first error is in assuming you NEED to know exactly what caused it. The Bible does not set that as a goalpost; it says God’s ways are above ours, which some Skeptics scoff at illogically, but it makes sense for an omniscient God! But we can also figure out some general, likely answers; that in those different situations other factors were at play that meant a “no” answer would produce the best overall effect for history as a whole.

    -Herb relevance is possible too, but could also be due to the placebo effect if there is in fact a positive-attitude-based reaction (to proteins generated by that mood for example).

    -It’s a false dichotomy that either you pray OR seek medical care. Nowhere does the Bible teach this. Critics of the Bible made it up (and you’ve parroted it in the usual ways). By bringing your post to that conclusion you have apparently built your criticism on a strawman. The argument was that it was evidence of a miracle (and I would say it may be), not evidence against medicine.

  • December 17, 2014 at 7:38pm

    “Medical researches have studied and confirmed the healing power of a positive attitude, regardless of the source.”

    I agree (and have concluded on my own before this) that this is one method that many of these healings might use. Another could just be automatic corrective mechanisms in the DNA that don’t really need a special trigger like a positive attitude, but may have just needed time, or something made by the cancer itself reaching a certain stage may trigger it.

    However, none of this is evidence against God, since it makes sense he would design such features, they are more consistent with his nature as good and brilliant (cue, no doubt, people forgetting about the Fall and citing bad things), and a designer really is needed to explain such functions.

    I would not necessarily ascribe such healings to a miracle in the literal, strict sense of a direct intervention, but the term is also often used of good things ultimately coming from God that couldn’t happen in a godless universe.

    On the other hand, nor can we blindly assume that they are [i]not[/i] miraculous healings of the direct intervention sort, and with a beyond-time, omniscient God, even design features can be miracles of timing still in response to prayer, by setting up the universe in the right Domino effect way to trigger the right cure because he foreknew the prayer would happen. :)

  • December 17, 2014 at 7:33pm

    Freedo, I don’t think that’s a good goalpost. How would you know they had the vision for real?

    But I’ve heard of accounts of this happening in Muslim nations.

    Even so, you’d do well to research the “goalposts” the Bible itself actually teaches and test to see if they are fulfilled, and other actually logical ones implied from its teaching, etc. When that is done, we find it passes (and no other such view does).

  • [1] December 17, 2014 at 7:29pm

    LOL, Freedo, he was speaking to Nicodemus who DID come to believe!

    Yeesh.

  • [-1] December 17, 2014 at 7:13pm

    WhoIs, notice that it says “may”, not “this is really awesome”. It was -tolerated- not encouraged, the same way Jesus said divorce for unwarranted reasons was tolerated too but not what God ultimately wanted. This is not “pro”. It’s not clearly anti- either, sure, but if God had demanded total perfection, they would likely have rejected the entire law and not been moved gradually toward perfection. Given the modern understanding of Stockhold syndrome and that they had been slaves, it makes sense they would demand this. And seeds to undermine it WERE planted, in (for example) freeing them to begin with.

    Yeah… context. ;)

    (And what you just did, acting like it’s OKAY to take things out of context, and actually imply the context can’t possibly matter, is quote mining.)

  • December 15, 2014 at 4:43pm

    Yeah……… doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out their motives for these choices in both of these movies.

  • December 15, 2014 at 4:36pm

    This is encouraging news. Keep educating people on our true founding, folks!

    The Constitutional answer to this is actually fairly simple. No matter what the display, if it is of a religious nature (and is not inappropriate re: decency laws of course), it’s allowed either on private property by permission of the owner or public property, re: “free exercise.” Free means free. That includes atheist displays, Muslim, and yes, Christian! Without accompaniment.

    In addition, the founders saw America as a Christian nation, and essentially as long as people are not required to believe or behave as if they believe (which would become establishment), the government can fund Christian displays (this one is more debatable but demonstrated by their practice at the time, so the debate seems to have a clear winner, and in any case, privately-funded ones are allowed). Funding of such should also follow majority lines, so that taxpayers who support it are being taxed for it and not otherwise, and it is then an expression of the majority rather than the government itself.

  • [-3] December 15, 2014 at 4:22pm

    I actually -am- a bit surprised they got it so close to right. Not that much, though, as the modern pattern could easily be shifted by that small a degree from Babel (Iraq… not far away), and/or they could be missing research that might correct their estimation.

    I expected Africa re: “Out of Africa”, or for the “surprising” part, either Europe or Asia. Middle East (even roughly where the Ark landed) is very close to right, biblically.

  • December 2, 2014 at 1:48pm

    “Christianity and Islam have a lot in common. They both:
    Are very conservative”

    You’re confusing American conservative Christianity for Christianity in general here. We are “conservative” because we wish to conserve freedom, but this was the inverse of the old way of the world in every other country before America (the Founders were “liberal” — these words just mean pushing for change and pushing to keep what you have. As soon as the Founders achieved freedom they became conservative — of the freedom!).

    But Christians are “liberal” in countries with tyranny, and against the current tyranny we still have (biblical Christians anyways).

    By contrast, Islam is trying to preserve tyranny. So basically, you used wordplay to lump OPPOSITES in with each other!

    watchingitall pretty much covered the rest.

  • [1] December 2, 2014 at 1:34pm

    indaz — I just knew it, when I saw the title — some fundy atheist or other antibiblicist would come along and try THAT one! But all you’re doing is displaying your ignorance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ44jx7J63g&list=UUpllN9azBqdDQZUKTkG_SwA

  • [-2] December 2, 2014 at 12:57am

    Wow, J, are you that ignorant?

    The argument is that life is so difficult to exist, that the laws of physics themselves must be just right, for matter and the like to exist. The fact that WITHIN a universe where those things are just right, something ELSE (the specific arrangements of that matter) have to ALSO be fine-tuned for life is not CONTRARY to this argument but actually evidence for it! (As an example showing the principle can exist.)

    Wow, J. Wow.

    That said, this is an argument I personally don’t use a lot, but for other reasons. Still, it shouldn’t be rejected for nonsensical reasons like what you posted.

    WOW!

    Re: blink, your mistake is in assuming the only purpose to the size of the universe is to support life. While for a few local things outside our solar system it’s possible that’s part of it, the main purpose for the rest is probably something else, and there can be multiple purposes too. It’s more like a small efficient machine, and a wide area that isn’t part of the machine that has other purposes.

  • [-1] December 1, 2014 at 11:32pm

    Mo, you’re just using a different metric of what counts as “higher” than him. He was obviously talking about reliability. A theory in science is not taken as fact, while a law is (with caveats, but you can research this on your own).

    (But to be clear, as whenever creationists mention the word “theory” you can bet the bad-google-search atheists will parrot the usual — I see evolution as a failed hypothesis, not a theory. I know we’re not talking primarily about that here, but FTR.)

  • [-1] December 1, 2014 at 11:29pm

    Hi, OracleOfSpam.

    More elephant hurling with the first clause. Second is more Ad Hominem. (And probably the usual misunderstanding Sola Scriptura, and your “bishop fallacy” from page 1, “I’d wager” (if I believed in wagering… see also answer about Pascal on page 1 on that note).)

    Also, it isn’t based on preference but sound support. :)

123 To page: Go